After a hot and long ceremony recently... I finally bought my own gown after years of renting. My first anything from Ede & Ravenscroft.
And just a shot of the new square @Claghorn tipped everyone off to in GNAT...cheers!
What I meant was that those people won't be wearing them to signal or demonstrate their wealth, they just wear them because everyone they know wears them.What struck me most after spending time with them at the fitting for my son's outfit as a page boy was that they simply don't think about the cost of anything. At seemingly any scale, money or the ability to pay merely doesn't enter into it. My wife and I marveled at what that must feel like.
A week away from styleforum makes for a daunting return. Skimming through I see that I missed a debate about bit loafers. I've owned a few different pairs, but have never been comfortable wearing them, but I will be at a society wedding in a few weeks in which most of the guests will undoubtedly be wearing them, at least for brunch if not for the wedding itself. Since many of those people are worth 10s and 100s of millions, it certainly isn't a symbol of wealth...they...
Very illuminating thread. Since most of my clothes were either thrifted by me or by fellow SF thrifters, I can assuredly say that my cars cost more than my wardrobe.
As to Shawn's question about classification. I love sports, both watching and playing. Have been, at various times, an avid rock-climber, caver, diver, pilot, go-kart racer.
Most days I listen to classical music while driving.
Have an ever-deepening interest in art.
Believe wholeheartedly in higher ed,...